ArticleScientific reports2025
A novel rapid rule-out protocol for acute chest pain using H-FABP point-of-care testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency department (ED) visits have gradually increased throughout recent years, contributing to the widespread problem of ED overcrowding. The purpose of this study was to develop a rapid rule-out strategy for patients with acute chest pain that integrates clinical characteristics and Heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) to improve ED patient care. H-FABP point-of-care test results of 130 patients were integrated into a modified HEART score, with a score ≤ 3 points indicating rule-out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Diagnostic performance was assessed with comparative analyses between the Ex-ACS protocol, the conventional HEART score, and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-h algorithm. In this study cohort, eight patients (6.2%) were diagnosed with NSTEMI and none were misclassified as rule-out by the novel protocol. The Ex-ACS protocol ruled out ACS in 63 patients (48.4%) with a median time of 16 min, notably faster than the ESC 0/1-h algorithm (123 min). The Ex-ACS protocol demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 51.6%, surpassing the traditional HEART score which exhibited a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 46.3%. The Ex-ACS Protocol offers a promising strategy for rapid ACS exclusion, potentially improving patient flow in EDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.